Agree with your final point as even though I criticize the US Championship and especially the fact that there seems to be zero attempt to stop relatively unplayed draws, many thanks to Frank Berry for his sponsorship.

Regardless of who runs the event (unless it's me of course) it's never going to be perfect and it's always easy to criticize! There will be too many players, too few players, too many short draws, random tiebreaks, not enough money etc.....one or more of those problems are likely to occur until we get sponsorships of hundreds and thousands of dollars.

Who knows where the US Championship would be without his support. Even though the state of the event leaves a lot to be desired (at least it does to me and my feeling of what the US Championship should ideally be), it would really be a disaster if the event didn't exist. Also it costs a lot of money to sponsor this event....tens and tens of thousands of dollars. For a single individual this is a serious sacrifice.

I still believe that if the USCF had even the faintest clue of what they are doing they could EASILY get sponsorship for this event. There is no reason I should be able to get about 33% of what they get for the US Championship for the US Chess League which is in going to be in its fourth year of existence, while exerting relatively minimal effort in doing so.

If they just said to someone....go get some money for the US Championship, and you can keep 10% of it, I just can't see how someone wouldn't be able to raise at least 200-500k. With the history and prestige associated with the tournament I don't see how it should be even the slightest problem. Maybe I'm naive but that's what I truly think if the USCF just knew how to behave in these situations.

As it turned out, the women's championship games were by far the most thrilling part of round 9 (since Shulman, going into round 9 a point ahead of the field, clinched it early with a short draw with Friedel whereby Friedel got his norm and Shulman got his title. This is not to dis either player).

The women's day is covered in Jen Shahade's article here: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8462/456/
Krush led by half a point as the round began, but got into serious trouble against Rohonyan, dropping a piece. Zatonskih meanwhile had gotten the full point against Battsetseg. Rohonyan missed the win and they got into a KRNkr ending, which Krush defended and which was drawn well after 8 PM.

Under the regs, Krush and Zatonskih split the money for first and second but went into a playoff for the title. They swapped wins with white at 15 3, then swapped wins with black at 5 3. The final stage was an Armageddon game, with an innovative plan, similar to something I proposed once (and I think I recall Greg Shahade proposing something like it too, am I wrong?), where player A (chosen randomly) determines the time split, allocating 10 to 12 minutes between the colors as he/she chooses (Black having less time but draw odds) but player B then chooses which color he/she wants. The point is that this is fair to both players, in that A must try to make the split as fair as possible so that A is no worse off no matter what B chooses. This is called a "pie-cutter" method because it corresponds to the fair way for cutting up pies - you cut, I choose. By contrast, in previous Armageddon games, prearranged so that White has 5 minutes and Black has 4, or 7 and 5, or whatever, it might be that one player is left griping that white has too much or too little time and that he or she got the short end of the color draw.

Unfortunately I don't know what the Armageddon time control turned out to be, or who picked it, and it's not in the article (yet). I only know that Krush ended up with white and a good position but apparently lost on time, leaving Zatonskih as the 2008 US Women's Champion.

Greg Shahade wrote:
"If they just said to someone....go get some money for the US Championship, and you can keep 10% of it, I just can't see how someone wouldn't be able to raise at least 200-500k. With the history and prestige associated with the tournament I don't see how it should be even the slightest problem. Maybe I'm naive but that's what I truly think if the USCF just knew how to behave in these situations."

Isn't that the exact platform Susan Polgar/Paul Truong got elected on? I mean, what real chages have taken place so far? Or am I missing the point of it all?

Has anyone else considered that stopping "unplayed draws" has strategic effects and (among other things) discriminates against whoever is in the lead (and would therefore benefit from draws)? While eleven moves is a little bit beyond the pale, forcing players to trot out extra moves and trade pieces before shaking hands seems silly.

If there's nothing to play for, why not play a draw? The solution is to pay for wins; say take the appearance fee money and split it between the participants giving one share per win.

Appearance fees are a joke anyway in a supposedly competitive sport. The PGA Tour bans them, and they're doing alright.

Yes, and in the NFL they should be forced to throw for touchdowns with a 7 point lead.

And in the NBA, they should get shots off in 7 seconds or less with a 6 point lead.

And in Hockey and Soccer, if you're up 1-0, take out the keeper, you need more goals...

Idiots.

And in the NFL / NBA / soccer / golf etc., the fans are PAYING for their entertainment. Or if watching it on free TV, they are at least part of an audience that's attracting substantial amounts of advertising and endorsement dollars (some of which the players receive, under established contractual arrangements).

So one could at least make a case that the audience has some moral right to dictate the terms of the contest.

Chess is the opposite. All these Internet freeloaders who complain about draws remind me of a beggar who, upon receiving a $1 bill from a passer-by, admonishes, "Excuse me, but the minimum contribution is $5!"

It isn't the GM who makes a quick draw to clinch first, who is getting or expecting to get something for nothing.

IT IS YOU, the couch-potato chess fan, talking as though you have some right to be entertained by professional chess players - when in fact they're under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to perform for you at all.

Greg,

I agree in principle, both on the many thanks to Frank Berry and on the confusion over why there is so little outside sponsorship.

I think it may simply come down to a legacy from Fischer and the Cold War. Many titled players I know would be delighted to take government money, but are extremely suspicious (as Fischer was) of corporate money.

Or more accurately I should say they are extremely wary of doing the things that need to be done to provide corporate sponsors with value for their money.

This is understandably reflected in the organisation's attitude, which sets other priorities. So one year the Championship site has excellent bios--but only for about 1/3 of the participants. Another year we get short bios of everyone--but no photos to go with them.

Your USCL, of course, has bios and photos of all players. So I'm not surprised that you're much more effective bringing in sponsorship money. It's not that bios automatically bring in sponsorship. It's that people who understand the value of bios tend to also better understand what sponsors are looking for.

None of this is rocket science, of course. Current books like The Sponsorship Seeker's Toolkit (for individuals) and Made Possible By (for organisations) have more than enough practical information in them.

Maybe chessplayers are just too used to buying books and then not reading them? ;)

regards,
Duif

p.s One tiny suggestion for the USCL site: add a way to contact each player. (The contact list can be posted in .pdf format to reduce spam.) Oh, and if it was me, I'd lose the "If you're using Internet Explorer, go away" messages. Since many companies mandate IE, it has a decidely anti-corporate feel.

Jon,

While normally I'd agree that paying fans have the most right to complain, a national championship is something of an exception, at least for those fans who are members of the sanctioning body.

regards,
Duif

Jon,

Another points concerns when you mentioned

"It isn't the GM who makes a quick draw to clinch first, who is getting or expecting to get something for nothing"

Of course, a quick draw is never the product of a single player. It's not only Shulman, but the other player (and actually, more the other player) in each instance who "made the draw".

Duif,

"One tiny suggestion for the USCL site: add a way to contact each player. (The contact list can be posted in .pdf format to reduce spam.) Oh, and if it was me, I'd lose the "If you're using Internet Explorer, go away" messages. Since many companies mandate IE, it has a decidely anti-corporate feel. "

An excellent point. The developers of any respectable website should take steps to make sure that it is compatible with all major browsers (of course, websites can stipulate that only newer versions of these browsers will be supported).

Duif, I have that note about IE, because there are really some serious serious errors when one uses it, that make the site look completely terrible.

I'm far from an expert programmer and somehow when I program it only works on FireFox, I simply don't know how to make it work for IE. Hopefully in the future this will get sorted out, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I'll change it to "For best results use Firefox", sounds a bit more positive :)

Greg,

I just went click happy on the site with IE 7 and did not experience any problems. Is it possible that it is just a question of version?

It could be. Try the stats page though, that one seemed to mess up for me. And also for some reason the logos at the top of the page are a bit lopsided when compared to firefox?

Greg,

Well, when I go to the stats page I don't receive any error messages, but most of the tables are blank, except for the match score distribution at the bottom.

I am curious....with all the discussion underway at the moment about whether or not the USCF should continue to publish a paper Chess Life magazine, I wonder if it has ever been evaluated to determine the value it could bring to sponsors?

I believe it costs about $200,000 per year to publish the magazine.

If the top 100 US players could each find a Chess Life sponsor for $2,000 a year, that would pay for most of the magazine, right?

Even if the USCF had to print an extra 5 copies per sponsor per month (so an extra 500 copies per month) and give each sponsor-plus-player one page per year (that's 8 per month plus, say, 2 more pages per issue for box ads and a description of the program), it should be a significant contribution to the magazine budget.

It would be an interesting project, anyway. A current full page ad costs $2650, so it could be presented as a bargain in one sense, and a circulation of over 60,000 is better than a lot of niche sports. It's also (at the present time at least) a high quality publication, easy to present from that aspect.

Of course, the players would have to believe that use of their image to keep the print magazine going would, in the long run, be good for them.

I think the magazine does impress people who first see it. I just don't know if anyone's ever looked at it from that aspect.

Well, just a random thought...

Duif

Parsnips is dead on. Anyone who criticizes Shulman or Friedel is a an idot. These guys are behaving 100% rationally, and congratulations to both on their individual accomplishments in the tournament.

Why on earth would they want to do that?

"If the top 100 US players could each find a Chess Life sponsor for $2,000 a year, that would pay for most of the magazine, right?"

Is it possible to imagine anything lower in a player's list of financial priorities?

Not sure if someone mentioned this in the above comments, but I'm adding this info to the item as an update. I'm told that before the final round the TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect were being suspended for the final round so Friedel and Shulman could play their non-game for the GM norm and title. A minute later, draw. Bizarre, horrible, and pointless favoritism. It's a little surprising that changing the rules like that is even allowed. I'm sure the players trailing Shulman by a point would have appreciated a real game by the leader, who had black against a dangerous opponent. I know you can never force players to play to win, and 30 moves of swapping wouldn't have entertained or fooled anyone, but announcing the suspension of the rules before the round, followed by the draw a minute later, is a little too cynical for me. This is the US championship, not a First Saturday tourney.

As for the draw itself, of course the players were behaving rationally. I don't blame the players. That's exactly the problem. We have permitted our game to create endless situations in which the interests of the individual at a given time far outweigh the long-term interests of the sport itself. This is why, as annoying as it may be, legislation is necessary to reverse this pathetic decline.

NFL teams aren't forced to play differently when they have the lead. But they are forced to play all 60 minutes even when a tie might benefit both teams in the standings. They introduced a shot clock in the NBA so the team with the lead wouldn't just pass the ball around forever to win, boring fans to death in the process. The chess draw by mutual agreement was a professional courtesy that has evolved into a strategic maneuver and a pernicious element. Open tournaments that are pay-to-play are a slightly different scenario since the players are rarely there to draw or reward sponsorship. But in invitationals it's preposterous to have such things. Again, of course it's rational for the players. They aren't idiots and they would be foolish not to exploit the rules for advantage when others will. This is why it is necessary to simply remove the option so we can get back to playing -- *playing* -- chess.

It seems bizzare that the TD need to announce short draws are allowed in the final round. Even without the announcement, I think they would have played for draw anyway.

To Jon Jacobs,
You are shortchanging the internet audience in my opinion. To me what you are saying sounds similar to what someone might have said about that newfangled television thing when radio had been king for so long. The internet audience is every bit as important as the television audience, and perhaps even more so as time goes on. And yes, advertisers can do fine on the internet, depending on audience size, just like with television. If the internet is still too new to some developers and they don't take advantage of the advertisement money, that is not the fault of the audience. I think you will be surprised at how the internet will kick tv's behind over the next few decades, and the internet is particularly well suited to chess.

@Jon Jacobs: chess tourneys also get sponsorships because of the fact that many chess fans ("freeriders"?? as you call them) visit the webpage of the tourney. and the more exiting the games more people will visit the page.
so i'd say that at least indirectly chessfans are very important for every chess competition and we have every right in the world to complain about the lack of the fighting spirit.

I'm not doubting you Mig, but can you name your source for this information about the rule change?

As with most such things I see no reason to identify my source unless someone denies the statement took place. It was said to the room so it's not like it was a secret pact or as if they were trying to hide it. I'm sure they considered it a kindness or at least a convenience and perhaps others feel that way, too. I don't consider it a malfeasance; I just found it odd and worth noting.

I have little doubt Friedel and Shulman would have played for a draw anyway, which makes the announcement, barring some explanation, both baseless and cynical. Again, there were two players who could have caught Shulman had he lost, so it wasn't like the game was meaningless.

Two reports, both by Tom Braunlich and identical in large parts, are up at ChessBase http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4650 and the USCF site http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8464/456 .

I can now tell you that the TC for the Armageddon game was 6 mins White / 4:30 Black, though I still don't know who split the time and who chose colors. The Armageddon game ended with both players in SEVERE time-trouble with Krush hoping to flag Zatonskih and Zatonskih trying to hold on and flag Krush.

In the Youtube video (who composed this?) which is linked from the ChessBase article, you can see them blitzing out the last few moves, with Zatonskih moving her rook back and forth from a8 to b8 or so because it was the move she could make which was nearest the clock. It looks to me as if the .pgn file misses this last bullet-game flurry. A rook is sent rolling around on the back rank, I think by Krush... Braunlich says that Krush's flag fell with 0000.1 sec left on Zatonskih's clock.

In the video she then makes some remark which I can't get and departs in a state, which, on the ChessBase site, is touted in italics: "Don't miss Irina's final comment and storm-off – this was really most distressing." It doesn't distress ME, for God's sake - to lose the title by a tenth of a second in this kind of thing, after playing solidly for hours and hours including that long endgame with Rohonyan? She did well not to throw anything. Actually I think this is a cheesy comment by whoever wrote it, and I SUSPECT it was a ChessBase editorial intrusion into the middle of Braunlich's article. On the USCF site, he writes, "Irina was naturally upset at the narrow defeat, but she returned to the closing ceremony shortly afterwards smiling and in her usual cheerful mood."

Jon Jacobs wrote:

"IT IS YOU, the couch-potato chess fan, talking as though you have some right to be entertained by professional chess players - when in fact they're under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to perform for you at all."

That's true, Jon. It is also true that those professional players who agree with you don't have any right or reason to expect financial compensation for their efforts or lack thereof.

It is a two way street.

A couple little practical afterthoughts:

(1) Now that the concept of the variable-TC Armageddon game has been introduced, why does it have to be a blitz game? Once you know that (a) there is going to be one decisive game and that (b) because of the I-split,-you-choose method, neither player can complain about who gets the draw odds, why not allow an hour for it and substitute it for the whole rapid/blitz playoff?

(2) Remember the space issue which had Onischuk threatening to walk out and had the organizers trying to decide who plays in the little room? Well, Braunlich reports that actually they resolved the whole thing by rearranging the tables. When the tables were lined up in long rows like a prison cafeteria, the players felt cramped. When they were separated like individual "islands", the players felt much better about it in the same space. There's a practical organizing lesson!

One more thing on the Shulman-Friedel game. Let me ask a hypothetical question. Here is Friedel sitting there who needs a draw for his GM norm. Pretty much everybody in the room wanted him to get it, I suppose. Now, suppose Shulman had adopted a policy of "rectitude" a la Cecil Purdy, saying that nobody was going to score any easy norms when he was around, and played for a win from move 1, got a winning position, declined to offer a draw, and ultimately beat him. What proportion of people in the room - players and organizers - would have thought that Shulman was doing the admirable thing, and what proportion would have thought he was being a jerk? This isn't entirely a rhetorical question - I'm curious.

Mig wrote: "I'm told that before the final round the TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect were being suspended for the final round so Friedel and Shulman could play their non-game for the GM norm and title. A minute later, draw. Bizarre, horrible, and pointless favoritism."

I actually agree with this comment - but for practical reasons, not moral ones.

That's because FIDE probably would be within their rights to reject Friedel's GM norm, if the situation was exactly as Mig described. The incident smacks of explicit collusion, with the organizers directly involved.

Yes, I know many of you including Mig consider ALL unfought draws to be implicit collusion, a form of game-fixing. I disagree, as I've made clear in many places. But, EXPLICIT collusion clearly IS game-fixing; in fact, that's pretty much the dictionary definition. And the organizer's encouragement / purported announcement represents a smoking gun.

In other instances where organizers bent the rules even slightly - EVEN BY ACCIDENT - to help a (U.S.) player make a norm, FIDE actually did throw said norm in the wastebasket.

The prime (and infamous) example is Ben Finegold. He would be a GM today, had not a once-highly-respected U.S. TD not made a pairing error in the final round of the tournament where Finegold made his third GM norm. (Obviously, that event must have been something other than a round robin.) According to the account I read, the mistake was innocent - the TD, Larry Cohen, wasn't deliberately trying to help Finegold get his norm - but FIDE interpreted it that way, and denied the norm.

That was more than 5 years ago. Finegold remains an IM to this day.

When Frank Berry was making his announcement about suspension of the anti short draw rules before the last round, he further qualified it by saying he did it, so that he didn't have to argue with the players about it.

Krush chose 6 vs. 4.5 time split for the play-off, while Zatonskih chose the color (Black). Krush at first said that the method was unfair to the "split chooser", but Jim Berry pointed out that there was a coin flip to determine who chooses what and that's how it turned out and that's that.

Krush was coached by David Pruess and Zatonskih by Alex Onischuk in between play-off games and for the time and color decisions for the Armageddon game.

Both girls took their time at first for the Armageddon game, trying to win it on the board. The time scramble started when Zatonskih glanced at the clock and saw that she had 2 seconds left vs. 6 seconds for Krush. When the dust cleared, Krush's time expired while Zatonskih still had 1 second left on her clock. The mode that was chosen didn't show the tenths. Krush said "come on!", threw a Rook (at an angle to the board, not trying to hit Zatonskih or anyone else), and stormed off. The pieces were rolling around during the time scramble as well, so you might say she simply got the last throw in. Krush was back at the closing ceremony, reserved a bit maybe, but with no additional acrimony expressed.

Gjelka from monroi videotaped the entire play-off and Betsy Dynako videotaped parts of it as well.

Thanks for the additional info, Michael! Actually, it strikes me that both players might have gotten in trouble in the Armageddon game because they had been playing with 3 secs. delay all day, including the two rapid and two blitz games, so mentally switching over to playing sudden-death may have been difficult. Note: there's no reason there can't be a delay in an Armageddon game under this system; naturally it helps Black draw, but then the split chooser can give Black as little time as he/she wants.

Theodulf writes: "(1) Now that the concept of the variable-TC Armageddon game has been introduced, why does it have to be a blitz game? Once you know that (a) there is going to be one decisive game and that (b) because of the I-split,-you-choose method, neither player can complain about who gets the draw odds, why not allow an hour for it and substitute it for the whole rapid/blitz playoff?"

Because in general, chess tournaments should be decided by playing chess, not by playing some disgusting variant game.

The Armageddon game was a terrible way to decide the women's championship. I'm an Irina partisan, so if the outcome was different iI might be singing a different tune, but it makes me wonder if the tiebreaking games could not be a mini-match of Fischerrandom games at a time control of 5/3, with the choice of colors going to the person who has accumulated the most wins in the tournament, or to the person with the least defeats if that is a tie, and the winner of the tiebreak being the first person to win five games. It would still be chess' it would honor Bobby's memory; and it might prevent what we all saw happen.

The Berry brothers deserve all the kudos they get for a great tournament. But along with this, let's not forget that the Truong-Polgar duo ran for office to bring in a lot more money to the USCF, and so far things haven't changed one bit. A US Championship without Kamsky, Benjamin, Naka and Larry C is a joke.

abc,

The sponsorship money would not come FROM the players. It would come from outside sponsors who would be matched with a player.

The whole project would be a learning experience. USCF would learn how to deal with sponsors, the top 100 players would get some experience in dealing with sponsors through the organization.

The nice thing about it is that from the sponsors' point of view it's a very straightforward concept. Full page ads in Chess Life sell for $2650. They would be getting more for less.

The Top 100 Players idea simply creates the framework.

It's quite possible that some of the players would go on to more extensive sponsorship from some of the sponsors. But that's not really the point.

More importantly would be both the USCF and the top 100 players starting to think about sponsorship as other niche competitions do. Not a single Fairy Godmother who waves a magic wand and solves all problems. Rather a large network of different sources giving different amounts for different projects in exchange for identified value.

The side benefit would be ensuring that all the adult members continue to get the magazine--which I believe would be of benefit to any professional player who hoped to continue to draw sponsorship.

By identifying the money as going towards the Chess Life budget up front, you would also remove a lot of the conflicting priority discussions that can derail other projects.

It would also be very easy to define and meet sponsor expectations, unlike event sponsorship, which is much trickier.

It's a "baby step" project, but one that would help meet an existing organizational need while starting to lay the foundation for an atmosphere that would promote professional sponsorship.

Anyway, as I said, just a random thought, provoked by Greg's earlier comment about the historical dearth of sponsorship for the championship.

--Duif

Ed: Personally I'd prefer a multi-day match between the top two, given the resources, but if we are going to have some sort of abbreviated playoff, I submit that rapid, blitz, and draw-odds uneven-time ("Armageddon") games are all "variants" of classical-TC chess, and that the judgment over whether 5 3 blitz, on the one hand, or a 60-minute-total Armageddon game, on the other hand, is the more "disgusting" a variant is a subjective one :-)

Duif wrote:

"The nice thing about it is that from the sponsors' point of view it's a very straightforward concept. Full page ads in Chess Life sell for $2650. They would be getting more for less."

It's hard to imagine finding more than a handful of businesses who would consider a full-page ad in Chess Life worth $2650.

Irv,

As it stands now, absolutely, you're right. But as part of a sponsorship package, yes, I do think it could work. But I also suspect it's one of those Henry Ford situations: "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right."

However, I'm also quite sure that the chess community in general agrees with you, so I'm sure it won't happen.

We may see a few individual US players who do seek out sponsorship and succeed. But I doubt if we'll ever see a USCF umbrella program, on any level. Just too many other priorities to take care of first.

--Duif

Theodulf: "I submit that rapid, blitz, and draw-odds uneven-time ('Armageddon') games are all 'variants' of classical-TC chess..."

Rapid and blitz are just chess. Under the severe time-contraints that events currently have, using them is reasonable. Armageddeon is a variant, since it radically changes the object of the game. Using it at all to break a tie in a chess tournament is appalling. Using it as the first method of breaking a tie is an abomination in the sight of Caissa.

Since noone ever saw Caissa (except for Gufeld, who was a pathological lyar), we should be safe witht the latter option.

.
Mig wrote, and used the term "swapping":
{
I know you can never force players to play to win, and 30 moves of swapping wouldn't have entertained or fooled anyone
}

One reason that chess is so draw prone may be that there are so many equivalent value exchanges or "swaps" that can be made among the officer pieces (and of course among the pawns too).
These relatively easy exchanges can rapidly drain piece power at crucial times during the game, breeding draws (without debating whether these draws are preferable to decisive outcomes).

Half of White's eight officers are of equivalent value, that is a lot of equivalence.

Equivalent Exchanges...

8 combinations of R:R
28 when summing N:N , N:B , B:N , B:B

IF in 1475 the fellow** who revised the chess rules had chosen a wider variety of piece types, chess might be far less draw prone today. Chess would have more piece power on the board longer. And more non-equivalent exchanges (still including R:B etc) would generate more of the imbalances that help make chess games decisive.

That both White knights start on the same shade of square also increases the frequency of draw-ish exchanges.

Here is a link to a related article (that I would write somewhat differently in the future)...

http://www.ChessBase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4612

(That follow-up article contains link to the original =4553 near its top.)

Good or bad in itself, the draw-prone nature of chess is what causes the need for one unsatisfactory tie-breaking mechanism after another. Armageddon is not chess, but it is better than the old coin flip that Robert Hubner suffered in the 1980's (Smyslov may have a different opinion).

** (I know it was not one guy, but I like the imagery of the myth.)
.

Duif wrote:

"However, I'm also quite sure that the chess community in general agrees with you, so I'm sure it won't happen."

I don't think finding sponsorship money is up to the chess community, no matter how hard it wishes to find it.

The reality is that nobody has ever come up with a coherent plan to get the sponsorship money in a steady basis. Yes, people find the occasionasl big sponsor (Yasser Seirawan lucked out with his father in law's political connections and that's how he became part of A4CF), but the rule is that the general public is NOT interested in chess, so nobody ever wants to commit serious money to a VERY marginal activity (in the same league as olympic wrestling,checkers, weight-lifting, spelling bee competitions, etc.).

I know you have spoused your theories for many years. Have you ever tried them with any top player(s)? I'd be seriously interested in hearing the outcome, if any...

Irv,

By "the chess community," I include the leadership in organisations such as the USCF and FIDE, and the titled players. Most of them believe getting chess into the schools is a much higher priority.

They follow the Highly Educated Fan theory--that the more people who understand the intricacies of your activity, the better it will be for the pros.

The alternative is the Iconic Message theory, which says that people don't have to be able to name 4 major golf titles to want to buy products associated with Tiger Woods--or the 35th highest rank woman in the LPGA.

As far as testing my theories in practice--personally, in chess I've only done them for myself, and I had no difficulty finding sponsors who made possible my own (very) small career. (When active, I am one of the top 100 female players in the US, and currently the highest USCF-rated woman in correspondence play.)

I'd be happy to work (for free) with any titled player who was interested, but they honestly don't need me...it's all standard stuff. For example, the Sponsorship Seeker's Toolkit is a book that anyone can get, many libraries carry, and has 90% of the information that they'd need.

Btw, you specifically mentioned "olympic wrestling"--in the US, their sponsors include Sunkist, the US Marines, AT&T, 24 hour Fitness, and American Airlines. Most individual olympic wrestlers have websites that includes lists of their individual sponsors, and encourage more.

Check out Joe Williams' page for an example:
http://www.joewillwin.com/sponsor.php

--Duif

What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?

Friedel and Shulman were gonna draw their game no matter what, whether it is 30 moves or 15 moves or whatever.. Even if 1 side has a clear advantage after 30 moves it makes no sense to play on and risk losing.

Also, if you enforce this draw rule strictly, it results in more fixed games, which is EVEN WORSE than quick draws. The bottom line is if 2 people want a draw, they will find a way to do it despite the organizer's best efforts.

Mig wrote: "...TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect..."

Here is a list of draws in the event that had 30 moves or less:

Fedorowicz - Shulman, rd 1, 22 moves
Akobian - Ippolito, rd 1, 20 moves
Ludwig - Perelshteyn, rd 1, 28 moves
Yermo - Gulko, rd 2, 15 moves
Finegold - Ludwig, rd 2, 26 moves
Kaidanov - Kudrin, rd 3, 19 moves
Kraai - Finegold, rd 3, 21 moves
Becerra - Kaidanov, rd 4, 30 moves
Perelshteyn - Fedorowicz, rd 4, 20 moves
Langer - Galant, rd 4, 30 moves
Akobian - Yermolinsky, rd 5, 25 moves
Gulko - Vigorito, rd 5, 24 moves
Onischuk - Becerra, rd 6, 26 moves
Shabalov - Finegold, rd 6, 16 moves
Fedorowicz - Kaidanov, rd 8, 15 moves
Friedel - Shulman, rd 9, 11 moves
Vigorito - Yermolinsky, rd 9, 14 moves
Becerra - Akobian, rd 9, 17 moves

And chess players want people to donate money to sponsor this crap???LOL

Congrats again MIG, still wonedring why people are not crying about your joke last year about the prostitue exports that was so funny and they are back like the idiot parsnips, they cryied like babies when you wrote that hillarious piece. Anyway great blog and keep up the good work love to hear these ignorant randoms praise a system that leeds to total irrelavance. The palyers don't complain because they have ALL done it with the exception of Nakamura. If they all were not such cowards and narcissists then maybe chess in this country would produce ONE super GM every 50 YEARS at least.

Hey Bush suspended the Constitution for years so we could destroy our country can't the USCF do the same to chess?Must agree MIg if you make the rules, then you can't suspend the rules, otherwise it is just worthless crap. Which titles are now by the way imho.

I'd very much appreciate it if someone could tell me the exact wording of the anti-draw rule in effect for this tournament (the one concerning which there is a claim that it was suspended for the final round). Also what prior status did this anti-draw rule have; how and at what stage were all the participants informed of it?

We have recently had some controversy here in Australia when a version of the Gibraltar rule was applied in the Doeberl Cup, and in the final round the arbiters interpreted it in a way that caused them to force two players who wanted to draw by repetition (albeit very early) to play on.

Thus I am very interested in other experiences with attempts to control draws.

Irv,

Oh, just to be clear: there are several dozen US women who are higher rated than I am over the board. They just haven't taken the time to play correspondence. So I'm not trying to claim to be an elite player.

Quite the opposite--my intended point was that if I could get sponsorship as a strong amateur, it seems to be pretty straightforward. Not easy, of course, but no different than other niche sports.

But history would seem to prove me wrong, so there it is.

regards,
Duif

p.s. BTW, to look at another on your list of niche competitions, 1st place in the National Spelling Bee receives $35,000 in cash plus some additional prizes.

http://spellingbee.com/comp_prizes.asp

What is worse? 1) The fact that a women's "national championship" was decided by an Armaggeddon game or 2) by Krush's childish and unsportsmanlike behavior when she lost on time, visible on Youtube for any young chess fan to see or 3) the Zatokskih's "ace" strategy of making moves closer to the clock to try to win on time.

Too bad Krush had to wear that stylish jacket to the final game. Look at all the precious nanoseconds wasted while pushing the sleeves back again and again, while the glory of the championship hung in the balance. Perhaps attire would have made all the difference!

There are so many things wrong with how this all came to be -- it is of no wonder that chess is not doing better. At least I am now aware that it was, in fact, to care less about women's chess than I already did.

Maybe it was cold in the room. Let's not rush to criticize in order to manufacture drama because we were all bored by the men's games.

Zatonskih won fair and square and deserves huge congratulations. I personally am always excited when a female player gets married, has kids, but doesn't let that affect her love for chess or playing strength.

However, it's completely understandable that Irina was exhausted and upset; she played for hours that day and had just watched her clock run out when her opponent was making repetitive moves. Is it such a big deal to say "Oh come on" and make a sudden and possible unintentional movement with your arm that knocks a piece off the board? It's not like she cursed, said something disrespectful to Anna, or refused to return for the closing ceremony. Has she ever behaved discourteously before? Why don't we cut her a break then?

Let's applaud both Zatonskih and Krush for providing us with hours of entertaining, energetic, and hard-fought chess.

Duif wrote:

"By "the chess community," I include the leadership in organisations such as the USCF and FIDE, and the titled players. Most of them believe getting chess into the schools is a much higher priority."

The reason is simple: they can make money with the Chess in the Schools movement. It has become a big business (by chess standards, of course).

"As far as testing my theories in practice--personally, in chess I've only done them for myself, and I had no difficulty finding sponsors who made possible my own (very) small career."

Glad to hear that. However, a real pro can't possibly subsist on a few hundred dollars worth of "sponsorship" money. Players have to be very careful to NOT confuse "charity" with "sponsorship". Going to the local dentist or supermaket, presenting a sponsorship package and walking out with a promise of $150 is charity, not sponsorship.

"When active, I am one of the top 100 female players in the US"

Please, take no offense, but your claim , while technically true, is completely worthless. You are just an abjectly weak player. I'm a rated master and my little "title" is (for the purpose of sponsorship) worthless, too.

"BTW, to look at another on your list of niche competitions, 1st place in the National Spelling Bee receives $35,000 in cash plus some additional prizes."

True. The US Chess Championship had more money than that on a couple of occasions. However, we are not looking for the exception. We are looking for the rule. And the rule is that all these marginal activities can't generate any amount of steady, meaningful sponsorship for its top players/practitioners.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a coherent plan for implementing your theories. Youyr intentions are good, but your ideas amount to no more than cheap, infantile, pocket-book marketing nonsense. That may be the reason nobody follows your advise.

Nobody answered my last post:
'What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?'

But I am serious- if you look at the videos carefully you can see that when Anna was making those rook moves at the end she moved before Irina pressed her clock several times at the end to gain time. Their moves came out almost simultaneously sometimes. Is this fair and legal?
Is this now considered fair enough in blitz?

Have a look at this video from 1:00 and you will see what I mean (started some moves before the rook ones)..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ

"Yes, and in the NFL they should be forced to throw for touchdowns with a 7 point lead.

And in the NBA, they should get shots off in 7 seconds or less with a 6 point lead.

And in Hockey and Soccer, if you're up 1-0, take out the keeper, you need more goals...

Idiots."
-Posted by: Parsnips at May 22, 2008 12:36

What bad analogies these are. An obvious place where they fail is that you're likening a chess tournament to a single game in another sport. A more appropriate comparison of gaining a lead (in soccer, hockey, whatever) and protecting it through conservative play would be to gaining a significant advantage in a chess game (material or positional) and opting to play a safe continuation rather than something more risky or flashy. You won't hear many (any?) people complain about that!

"Nobody answered my last post:
'What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?'

But I am serious- if you look at the videos carefully you can see that when Anna was making those rook moves at the end she moved before Irina pressed her clock several times at the end to gain time. Their moves came out almost simultaneously sometimes. Is this fair and legal?
Is this now considered fair enough in blitz?"
-Posted by: REMIT at May 24, 2008 15:17

I think you're right.

Irv,

What an interesting comment!

"I'm still waiting for you to provide a coherent plan for implementing your theories. Youyr intentions are good, but your ideas amount to no more than cheap, infantile, pocket-book marketing nonsense. That may be the reason nobody follows your advise."

As I've mentioned a number of times, the ideas aren't mine--they're just a standard approach. The "coherent plan" is available in a number of again, standard references. I have mentioned most recently a book I have to do nothing to with, "The Sponsorship Seeker's Toolkit." This is perhaps the most widely available, which is why I recommend it. It is both coherent and a plan. I thought the example of the Olympic wrestlers seeking individual sponsors was pretty straightforward.

Why you suddenly jump to adjectives like "cheap," and "infantile" is honestly fascinating to me. I have seen this again and again in the chess community, and nowhere else.

I have myself been quite a successful consultant. In a straight business sense, my credentials are well known. My chess credentials are no secret--I'm a master in correspondence chess and 1700 or so over the board. Over the years I have done fundraising with schools, political candidates, children's causes and environmental organizations.

I never suggested that chess players could subsist entirely on sponsorship. I do think they could get more than they have, as competitors in most niche activities do.

In this topic I've just responded to Greg's comment about his curiosity as to why the USCF doesn't attract more sponsorship. However perhaps your most recent comment does give the answer.

For some reason, many in the chess community seem to be quite actively hostile to even exploring the whole idea.

Truly very interesting.

You have quite convinced me. I think all the arguments are on your side.

Thank you for taking the time, and being so clear. It really has been a very helpful discussion.

Respectfully,
Duif

Just to follow up, REMIT, it might be worth mentioning here that the NBA enforces rules concerning how much time must be left on the (shot or game) clock for a player to catch and inbound pass and get a shot off. In basketball, the clock starts only when an inbound pass touches any player on the court rather than when it physically crosses the out-of-bounds line. They have empirically determined that there must be at least 0.3 seconds remaining to allow a catch-and-shoot scenario. Thus, any attempt to quickly catch a pass and shoot with less than 0.3 remaining will be called back by the officials, regardless of any timekeeper errors or shenanigans. Note that it is still possible to score off an inbound pass with less than 0.3 left, but it must be a "tip-in" rather than a "catch-and-shoot".

After this incident, the USCF might rightly consider a similar rule regarding how quickly a chess move can be played. I understand that some players, having encountered such time pressure many times, will have very fast hands, but is it really possible to make a chess move in less than, say, 0.1 or 0.2 seconds? Doubtful. Of course I'm also assuming there are no timekeeping shenanigans such as starting your move before the opponent has punched their clock.

Here's an obvious solution that I think might work well enough. Chess clocks should be programmed to enforce a minimum time per move - say 0.2 seconds. If a player manages to punch their clock before 0.2 has elapsed, their clock continues to run and the opponent's won't start until 0.2 has run off. This handles the twofold advantage gained by getting your move in faster and depriving the opponent of the extra "thinking" time.

duif--

Another cheap and infantile post, but this time the weakness is less abject. You're definitely making progress!

Duif and others,

Don't mistake Irv as an emblem/archetype for "the chess community." He is entirely marginal to organized chess, as he himself would be the first to admit. (The fact that he's a strong player is wholly irrelevant.)

If he's to be viewed as an archetype of anything, it would be the Internet gadfly community that exists around the fringes of every sport, business or political community. These permanent critics / naysayers are distinguished from ordinary critics of the establishment in that, rather concentrating their negative energy on a particular individual or group (Bush, the GOP, or in our case, the current USCF or FIDE leadership, or a particular GM or group of GMs) - an attitude that logically CHANGES when different parties come to power - they're equally cynical about everyone and everything associated with the activity they fixate on.

In the case of chess, the deep-rooted hostility to any possibility of chess sponsorship that's evident in Irv's comments here (and on other threads), has a strong element of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Or in the words of a different, much more contemporary thinker who Duif evoked, "How very interesting...."

Clearly Irv has a great emotional investment in believing that chess sponsorship is a pipe dream...to the point where, when faced with contrary evidence - when, for instance, someone (like Duif) does manage to snatch a handful of those grapes - Irv's instant rejoinder is, "The grapes were sour."

Thank you, Greg. I try to always welcome an opportunity to learn from the Masters. ;)

regards,
Duif

Chiming in once more before I get banned for spamming. I downloaded that YouTube video of the Krush-Zatonskih finish and watched it a 1/4 speed in VLC. There were no less than 5 instances where Zatonskih grabbed her piece and started her move before Krush has finished her move by punching the clock. There was even one particularly flagrant example where Anna had finished here move before Irina had even punched the clock, and there she ended up punching the clock about a millisecond after Irina. Say what you will about the randomness of blitz chess and time trouble, but this was supposed to be a regulated tournament, not a park bench. Hard to believe the organizers let the result stand without checking out the video. I honestly think someone should file a protest if it isn't too late.

By the way, I have no loyalties towards Krush or Zatonskih one way or the other. Both used to lecture on a chess server where I was once a member, and I remember them both being very nice girls.

Official USCF blitz rules are here:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7982/28/

However, the only thing that's relevant there is that the legal move is not completed until the clock is pressed.

The question would then arise, "Are you allowed to touch pieces on the board while it is still your opponent's move?"

This would apply whether it is blitz or standard chess.

So for that question, one would normally consult the regular rule book, which is available only in paper.

Unless, of course, special rules were adopted for this event, or a different rule book was in use.

In most forms of chess, touching a piece on the board while it is still your opponent's move would be considered interfering with their concentration even if you gained no time advantage from it. But I don't know about this particular event.

--Duif

Elizabeth Vicary --

Irrespective if you think the chess between Krush and Zatonskih was entertaining:

Would you speak with and\or correct similar behavior in any of your junior high chess students if they blasted a rook off the table after a tough time forfeit and then stormed out of the room without shaking the opponent's hand?

To have this happen in a U.S. Championship is disgraceful, despite the obvious sympathies for Krush that most of us have about the bitterness of such a defeat, particularly in light of Zatonskih's questionable observance of blitz rules and etiquette.

I watched Alexander Ivanov up a piece and on his way to winning the World Open several years back, completely melt-down in time trouble in the final round and lose out on first place and several thousand dollars of prize money -- only to shake the hand of his lucky opponent and give at least a perfunctory congratulation.

Anyone over the age of 16 should be expected to observe a minimum of sportsmanship -- I recognize Krush as the best U.S. female player and highly entertaining in her games and writing, but to give her a free pass for even this occasional lapse in conduct is a bit much.

To Duif - I just assumed you weren't allowed to touch your piece before the opponent had clocked. Seems an obvious rule.

To ohreally - Come on now, Irina's reaction was hardly over the top. Even if she didn't realize she'd been (basically) cheated at the time, she surely realized that the end of that game was a farce.

I think i'll offer Duif an apology on behalf of chessplayers and fans. I hope the intemperate and ill-mannered posts by Irv are an aberration rather than the behaviour norm for strong players but i despair at the generally sarcastic and uncivil tone of a lot of these discussion threads. You kinda understand why there are so many uncouth barbarians in our midst and we inhabit the margins of social respectability.

ohreally,

oh, really?

I bet you would be a really sore loser if it happened to you.

I wouldn't accept such behavior from my students, but I also hope they don't have the same emotional investment in their weekend Saturday G/30 tournaments as Irina Krush does in the US Championship playoffs.

She behaved incorrectly, no doubt. But people like her exactly because she is competitive and ambitious and consequently achieves a lot. You're going to hate her for that now? Normally she's very well-behaved. So she had one lapse at 11 o'clock at night after playing a grueling tournament and numerous tiebreak games. I would guess she spoke privately to the people involved. What's the need to make a huge public big deal?

And not to beat a dead horse, but clearly it's must better for chess to have an entertaining if impolite finale than to have pre-arranged last-round draws. (No disrespect to Friedel or Shulman intended. Anyone would have done the same thing.)

On the blitz move issue, this issue has been taken up by Int'l Arbiter Geurt Gijssen in his chesscafe.com column recently (not in connection with this game, of course):

"Although it is not articulated clearly, it is generally accepted that based on this Article the opponent has the right to make his move before the player has stopped his clock. However, the player still has the right to stop his own clock and to start the opponent’s clock, even after the opponent has made his move."

So according to Gijssen, it is legal to whip out your hand to move your rook as soon as your opponent's hand has left his/her piece. What you mustn't do is complete the move and get your hand back to the clock and intercept your opponent's hand before he/she has even pressed the clock at all.

And on two other points:

- In other sports, you don't think any professional athlete has ever exclaimed something nasty at the moment that he/she or his/her team lost the title after a grueling contest by a teensy margin? All of the Chelsea players were on their best behavior in the instant after Anelka missed his kick, I suppose? I urge the people who are on Irina's case here to lighten up.

- On the "suspension of the short-draw rules" for the Shulman-Friedel game: I would like to repeat the question which has been asked above, "WERE there any short-draw rules?" I certainly don't see anything on the website suggesting that Sofia or Gibraltar rules were in effect or anything like that, and if draws in as few as 15 moves were taking place in other rounds, then what are we talking about really? Is it possible that the organizer in question was just making a joke? (In that case I hope it doesn't cost us with FIDE as Jacobs suggests it might.)

Thanks Cynical Gripe for taking up my point.

theodulf- I am very surprised that it can be argued fine to play in your opponent's time. Similar to what happened in the game we are talking about, one side could perpetually move within a tenth of a second of the other so that 90% of the time runs on the other's clock- even though both move just as fast, which seems unfair. You get an automatic win for the second player (who just 'reflects' the times at which the first player moves)in such a time scramble.

According to the FIDE handbook http://www.fide.com/info/handbook?id=32&view=category 'Article 6.8 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent`s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.'

This last part is important- the vital time period we are talking about is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. It is not yet the opponent's allotted time. But then it is if the opponent has also just moved- so it is the allotted time of both at the same time until the clocks are pressed? That would not make sense.

Not to mention I don't think that it is logical to have two players in the middle of making their moves at the same time- the move is not completed until the clock is pressed.

There are also issues regarding even having your hands hovering over the board or causing distraction in your opponent's time, which moving a piece would probably contravene too.

I myself have never started my move while my opponent is still aiming to press his clock after his move on the board, it just feels wrong. I think the best solution is for there to be a time delay for how long you think it should take to move and press the clock so that for example your opponent can not try to just win on time without regard to position at all. The physical moving of piece and pressing of clock is not thinking time and it should not be about this.

I think the rule goes as: You cannot start your move (i.e. toutch your piece) before your oponent has finished his move (i.e. left the piece in its final square). What is allowed is to start your move after your oponent left his piece but before he pressed his clock (provided that you press the clock after he has done the same).

If you can play and press the clock in the same time your oponent needs to just press the clock it is the fact that you play quicker that earns you time. If both players play equally fast, both clocks register the same time.

Given the entire reply by Int'l Arbiter Geurt Gijssen in his chesscafe.com article, as raised by Theodulf, there indeed seems to be a big problem.

Mostly, the problem is the possibility of Geurt's weird logic infecting the whole chess community.

Surely it is well accepted that in tournament chess of any time control, you MUST be allowed to press your own clock before the opponent touches a piece to move?

In blitz tournaments I sometimes complain - to the opponent - if he jumps the gun on moving. Everybody then stops doing it, and nobody claims they had a right to do it.

In all the videos of world class events I do not see players playing by Geurt's interpretation.

The basic principle is that the move is not completed until the clock is pressed. And you can't move until your opponent has moved.

"Question Dear Sir, your last column raised some questions that were widely discussed at our online forum. Could you comment on this quote?

Your question is in fact: Can one make a move before the opponent has stopped his clock and started the opponent’s clock?

To answer this I refer to Article 6.8.a:

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)

Although it is not articulated clearly, it is generally accepted that based on this Article the opponent has the right to make his move before the player has stopped his clock. However, the player still has the right to stop his own clock and to start the opponent’s clock, even after the opponent has made his move.

In the Ukraine this is not generally accepted. The latest Ukrainian translation of the FIDE Rules literally makes no differences between “move hasn’t been made” and “move hasn’t been completed.” Thus, based on articles 1.1 and 6.8.a, such a rendition means that a player has the right to make his move only after the opponent has made his move (article 1.1), stopped his clock and started the opponent’s clock (article 6.8.a). Do you consider this as a misinterpretation?

By the way, a former Soviet arbiter said that the old version of the FIDE Rules expressly prohibited making a move until the opponent stopped his clock. It’s pity that I could not find a printed copy. Thanks. Yuri Hnip (Ukraine)

Answer I have mentioned several times that the phrase “made a move” in Article 1.1 is confusing. It is possible to speak of “completing a move” only after the term “chess clock” is introduced, and this happens in Article 6. But this does not provide a sufficient answer to your question: Do you consider the fact that a player may make a move only after the opponent has completed his move (meaning made his move and pressed the clock) as a misinterpretation? My answer is: Yes. This is based on Article 6.8: A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

In my opinion, this part of Article 6.8 only makes sense if a player makes a move before the opponent has pressed his clock. It means that even when a player is not on move, he is allowed to press the clock in the given situation. The following argument may not be very strong, but suppose a player can only move after the opponent has pressed the clock. Can you imagine how many quarrels we would have in Blitz and Rapid games? And in this case there is no difference between “normal,” Rapid and Blitz games."

Hardy,

You are very kind, but really no apology is necessary from anyone. I found the discussion interesting and enlightening. I myself was always honoured and pleased to get sponsorship regardless of the amount. It was just a question of balance--how much time did it take away from other things.

Perhaps chessplayers like Irv just have such high standards that it seems only the highest elite are worthy?

I personally found the support and accountability of a support network very helpful, beyond just the financial benefit.

If I, for example, were to return to tournament chess and set a personal goal of becoming an over the board master, I would certainly feel comfortable seeking sponsorship to help me achieve that. I know it wouldn't even put me in the top 100 of US players, but I still think it's a real accomplishment.

I admit to being fascinated by the marketing side, too, but that's my professional background. I can't help that. I am always interested in what people who don't play tournament chess think about it.

Regardless, I concede the general argument to Irv completely. I don't think sponsorship would work for him. I hope that he will respect the possibility that it can work for some individuals, even if he regards them as misguided.

Chess does attract purists, and that's not a bad thing. It is an objective game, and the rating system, while not perfect, gives us a lot of information about a player.

Sponsorship is a value-based proposition, but it does have a degree of subjectivity that may just not be comfortable for some players. There is no ELO formula for sponsorship. I think that's an important point, and I appreciate Irv's clarity on the topic. I learned a lot from his comments.

regards,
Duif

p.s. I should add that the balance issue is how much time does it take to meet the sponsor's expectations, not just find sponsors in the first place. Since I enjoy a lot of the activities that sponsors need done to complete the value package, it probably is a little easier for me.

You're at the end of a long journey; you have to play a farcical game to decide the title of US Women's Champion after a long and grueling day; you've just come off a 108 move draw that could have been concluded as such much much earlier; and you lose with less than two seconds difference and on top of that you are expected to not let your feelings show???
That is a ridiculous expectation.
And, in my view, biased as well.

Korchnoi regularly exhibits less-than-desirable behavior when he loses a normal tournament game, and hardly anyone gives him the grief that Irina has recieved for practicing her tennis forehand on her king. Indeed, he gets a monicker, "Victor the Terrible," while on other posts I have seen elsewhere, Irina is likened to something that is as far from her real personality as one can get.

Is there a double standard here?

Irina is the greatest player in the history of US Woman's chess. She plays her heart out in every game; and I find it interesting to note that the chess in the woman's section of this tournament was considerably harder fought than that in the men's.

The sexism directed against both Irina and Anna (I'm not going to cite specifics, if you want to see them for yourselves, just look at Susan Polgar's blog, or chessgames.com) by immature jerks who seem, by their writing, to be stuck somewhere in their emotional development between a plastic pocket protector-wearing geek and a drooling ape with less empathy than King Kong, is reprehensible.

Both of these women deserve our respect, appreciation, and compassion. The time for quibbling about hitting clocks and flying kings is past. To do otherwise is to cheapen the hard-earned title of the one, and reduce the other to a caricature that she in no way resembles.

Give them a break.

I'd like to pick up on the comment of Theodulf above and suggest that a lot of discord could be avoided in the future by having a 3-5 second delay in the Armageddon game at the end of such a tournament.

The need for an Armageddon-like game seems clear - players can trade wins or paired draws indefinitely, so to get a winner you need to play a single game and make a draw a winning result for one player. Giving black draw odds and sweetening white's usual advantage with a little extra time seems natural.

However, if it is played as blitz without a delay, then you will sometimes run into the usual garbage blitz endgame techniques - random moves, clock banging, "unintentionally" knocking over pieces, etc. All of which is normal for blitz, but has no place in regular chess. I would suggest that to avoid this kind of spectacle, it would be worthwhile to keep a 3-5 second delay, so that the players always have time to physically move the pieces. Then the game has to be decided on the board. Obviously the time difference between white and black would need to be adjusted accordingly, though I'd say the same method of choosing the times could be used.

The one downside that I can think of with this arrangement is you could get to a complicated-but-drawn endgame in which white refuses to concede the draw, but instead tries to play on indefinitely, avoiding 3-fold repetitions, in hope of some miracle. I seem to recall a recent tournament (in France, with Korchnoi and Kosteniuk and Fressinet) where a game seemed to threaten to go on forever. Anyway, from the TD's perspective, this might be bad because they could theoretically be required to step in at some point , but this fairly remote possibility seems a better bet than the all-too-likely finale we saw.

By the way, congratulations and good luck to both players. I hope Zatonskih gets some benefit from the title, and I hope Krush can still get invites to all those foreign tournaments she's been playing in lately. They are a lot of fun to watch, when they aren't playing blitz.

"What bad analogies these are. An obvious place where they fail is that you're likening a chess tournament to a single game in another sport. A more appropriate comparison of gaining a lead (in soccer, hockey, whatever) and protecting it through conservative play would be to gaining a significant advantage in a chess game (material or positional) and opting to play a safe continuation rather than something more risky or flashy. You won't hear many (any?) people complain about that!"

Not so much a bad analogy, as a demonstration of your inability to abstract out protecting a win in various competitive situations where the goal is to win. But please, continue to impress us with your analytical skills.

"Not so much a bad analogy, as a demonstration of your inability to abstract out protecting a win in various competitive situations where the goal is to win. But please, continue to impress us with your analytical skills."
-Posted by: parsnips at May 26, 2008 00:53

I maintain that it's a poor analogy. Let's say FIFA decided to organize a round-robin soccer tournament, and that oh, I don't know, Portugal had a lead of 3 points going into the last game against Spain, thus being able to clinch the title with a draw. Spain could not win the tournament, but a draw would earn them a top-8 finish and an automatic birth in some future tournament. How sporting would it be for them to look after their mutual interests by playing a non-game in which neither team even attempted anything resembling an attack or a shot on goal? Better yet, they should be allowed to declare a draw after 30 minutes of this non-game.

I see this more as being granted the title rather than protecting it. Protecting something implies some sort of defensive effort on your part, such as playing in a conservative style, rather than not having to play at all.

Duif wrote:

"Perhaps chessplayers like Irv just have such high standards that it seems only the highest elite are worthy?"

In all honesty, Duif, only the very best deserve and get REAL sponsorship (when there is sponsorship money avaliable, of course - that may not be the case with chess).

Whenever I discuss these issues, I only consider IM & GM (plus very promising young players) as possible candidates for sponsorship. I don't think that run-of-the-mill masters - like me - or truly weak players like you deserve or can even attract real sponsorship.

"If I, for example, were to return to tournament chess and set a personal goal of becoming an over the board master, I would certainly feel comfortable seeking sponsorship to help me achieve that. I know it wouldn't even put me in the top 100 of US players, but I still think it's a real accomplishment. "

Nothing wrong with a player, of any rank, seeking (and, hopefully, obtaining) sponsorship money. That's a legitimate quest. My point is that no real sponsorship money (in the form of endorsement deals, mostly) is available for chess. The reason is that there is not enough interest from the non-playing public.

"I admit to being fascinated by the marketing side, too, but that's my professional background. I can't help that. I am always interested in what people who don't play tournament chess think about it. "

Non-players are marginally interested in chess. Anyone can see that based on the little to no-coverage chess gets in all sorts of media.

"Regardless, I concede the general argument to Irv completely. I don't think sponsorship would work for him."

The good news is that:

1. I don't think my skill level is deserving of any sponsorship money. Leave that to the truly accomplished players (IM's and GM's). As a TRULY amateur player, I show deep respect for those who excel at the game.

2. I have NEVER wanted, needed or accepted sponsorship money or help from anyone to finance my chess playing. I have played the game for fun and nothing else. It's just a game for me, from day one.

"I hope that he will respect the possibility that it can work for some individuals, even if he regards them as misguided."

I hope you do the same. And, please, be careful to distinguish REAL sponsorship from charity. You, as a person with serious disabilities, may be given money NOT because you deserve it, but as an act of compasssion. Professional players (GM's and IM's) CAN NOT rely on the generosity of compassionate folks. Neither should you, but I grant you the right to do whatever you think is best for you.

Real sponsorship is not about begging for a little money. Real sponsorship is when OUTSIDERS want to spend MEANINFUL money on chess and chess players hoping to get some benefit out of it. When a person "sponsors" you, they are not expecting anything in return. That's charity, compassion, generosity, pity, condescension, whatever...but certainly NOT sponsorship money.

"Sponsorship is a value-based proposition, but it does have a degree of subjectivity that may just not be comfortable for some players. "

Has it occurred to you that what you call "sponsorship" may be "charity" to most people?

"There is no ELO formula for sponsorship."

That's a misleading statement. The truth is that sponsorship money (when available) is specifically allocated to players, events or institutions that maximize the chance of a financial or branding reward for the sponsor. Why would anyone sponsor you or me when they can spend their money on a top player?

Cynical Gripe,

Such non-games occur in FIFA qualifiers all the time.

The fact is the analogy is completely sound, because it applies to any competitive situation where the final result is at stake. A draw is a tool in the chess players arsenal to secure a tournament win, as much as running the clock out in a close football game. Until you can get past the "oh one is a game, the other is a series of games brain overload", you'll never understand the point isnt to compare the details of the particular event, but just to know that the competitive result is on the line, and the strategies (boring/unfair/non-sporting however you want to categorize it) used to protect the win of the competitive event are legitimate across all sports.

Irv,

Thank you for your response. To clarify a few points...

1. I received sponsorship money before I became disabled.

2. I grant you that it is difficult at any time to distinguish "charity" from "sponsorship." Larger or ongoing sponsorship deals almost always have a quid pro quo contract, though. You'll find examples of those in the various books I've mentioned.

On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with a player at any level accepting what you would regard as charity. If both parties are satisfied with the transaction, it's honourable.

3. "Non-players are marginally interested in chess. Anyone can see that based on the little to no-coverage chess gets in all sorts of media."

On this, I do have to disagree. Chess is one of the commonly used symbols in advertising, for everything from local car dealerships to international investment banks. One of the things I used to do professionally was review surveys of symbols used in national print advertising, so I feel comfortable that there's a lot of data on this.

Tournament chess gets little or no coverage. But images of chess appear over and over.

4. "The truth is that sponsorship money (when available) is specifically allocated to players, events or institutions that maximize the chance of a financial or branding reward for the sponsor. Why would anyone sponsor you or me when they can spend their money on a top player?"

There you touch on exactly the most critical point for ANY individual sponsorship program. Why does the 35th highest ranked woman on the LPGA tour get any sponsor at all when Tiger Woods exists? Why does an Olympic hopeful wrestler who placed 6th at regional trials get any sponsorship?

It all comes down to sponsor expectations. Maybe they want to support someone local. Maybe they want to support someone who clearly needs the sponsorship. Maybe they don't want to compete for attention with all the other sponsors already involved with the elite. Maybe the lower ranked person is just better at working with sponsors, or that particular sponsor.

That's exactly what I meant about no ELO formula. Sponsorship is not proportionally allocated on the objective basis of playing ability, in any activity. There's more to it than that. Part of it is personality, part of it is professionalism, part of it is having done the research to know what particular sponsors want. Part of it is just luck--being in the right place at the right time with a sponsorship program ready to go.

I don't think that Cristie Kerr accepting sponsorship is, as you seem to imply, in some way disrespectful to Annika Sorenstam or Tiger Woods. Or to golf itself.

However, we may just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Respectfully,
Duif

Jeez parsnips, leave off with your "brain overload" and "please, continue to impress us with your analytical skills" crap - it does nothing to strengthen your argument. What you probably do realize, but fail to admit, is that broad sweeping analogies like you're trying to make almost always fail when one starts looking at the details. I have nothing whatsoever against boring strategies so long as they don't involve collusion from your opponent. Only then do they become unfair / non-sporting.

"In all honesty, Duif, only the very best deserve and get REAL sponsorship (when there is sponsorship money avaliable, of course - that may not be the case with chess)."
Goodbye, local football team! And every other local sport!
The super-elite, of course, are born so and never need to work their way up from beginner status?
Get real, Irv, it's about media coverage, not skill. If the weak local team generates coverage then they will be sponsored.
Cf a certain Ms Kournikova, who was not sponsored due to her elite skills, but for her marketability.
"Why would anyone sponsor you or me when they can spend their money on a top player?"
'Coz they want their brand name exposed, and they will do that for anyone that can convince them that it is profitable for them to do so. They don't give a toss bout supporting the elite per se.
"Professional players (GM's and IM's) CAN NOT rely on the generosity of compassionate folks."
Which is why a rich man got elected as FIDE president, or was it his purely objective organizing skills. Plenty of tournaments sponsored by wealthy chess patrons who I doubt are getting real value for their money.

I must say that I find it comforting to learn that when one has lost the debate and antagonized all the other participants, one can always resort to expressions like "real" and "meaningful" to tell everybody how you are the only one who really understands the issue.

When all else fails, redifine reality!

All these arguments pretending that chess can be successfully marketed to the genral public (something never achieved by anyone) remind me of the common ultra-weak chessplayers who talk a big game and can articulate a good and "logical" strategy: "I can beat strong players; it's easy: you just study their favorite opening, prepare a solid line, make sure you develop your pieces according to the general priniciples, pay attention to all his maneuvers and remain active. You do that, you will be in a good position to reach an even endgame; when he overpresses, you just exploit his weaknesses and bring home the point. Remember: rooks belong behind passed pawns!".

Nice and logical, isn't it?

The result is always the same: weak player hangs a pawn by the 17 move and loses the usual way.

Same thing with chess and marketing: "Yes, you can bring money to chess. No, I have never done it, but here is the secret..."

Unfortunately, unlike chess (where there is checkmate to refute all the nonsense), there is no way to put an end to the silly argument, so anyone can claim anything he/she wants. I just go by the evidence: if it is possible, howe come nobody has ever done it anywhere in the world?

(and no, isolated cases don't count - save the saliva. Magnus Carlsen, Kasparov, etc. are the exception). Real, successful marketing of chess is about making sure there is at least some money for the average, run-of-the-mill IM or GM.

Irv,

I agree with you: there is something unusual about chess, or it would already be being done.

It's just that the discussion usually gives reasons that are clearly not true for other niche sponsorships. So I think the discussions tend to get sidetracked on things like whether it has to be a popular viewing activity, whether only elite competitors can get sponsorship, all that.

You won't find a website for an Olympic hopeful in the US that doesn't ask for sponsorship, for any sport, including things like curling and greco-roman wrestling. It's part of that culture.

But if you look at the websites for the very best US players, even people like Hikaru Nakamura, you would probably conclude that tournament players aren't allowed to have sponsors.

(The exception is Gata Kamsky's new foundation, and that's very recent. And tricky, because he's trying to set up a 501(c)(3) foundation, which again blurs charity and sponsorship, and actually puts more restrictions on how money can be spent.)

IM Greg Shahade says he has been able to bring some sponsorship to the US Chess League, so that seems to be a fact. The league's website is much more similar to what you would see elsewhere with regard to sponsors.

But you're right, hardly any one else has done it, so I think we probably do have to conclude it won't be done on a general basis in chess.

--Duif

Nobody answered my last post:
'What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?'

But I am serious- if you look at the videos carefully you can see that when Anna was making those rook moves at the end she moved before Irina pressed her clock several times at the end to gain time. Their moves came out almost simultaneously sometimes. Is this fair and legal?
Is this now considered fair enough in blitz?"
-Posted by: REMIT at May 24, 2008 15:17

This is called cheating. And it's not some skittles game in the park, either. It's a national title and, effectively, a robbery.

In which case, Irina's reaction is not only justified, but kind of mild.

"....a lot of discord could be avoided in the future by having a 3-5 second delay in the Armageddon game at the end of such a tournament."

Yes, a 3 second delay would be preferable, in that the "Armageddon" game would be less likely to degenerate into a farce. Frankly, an Armegeddon game should be a last resort, and only contested after several sets of regular Blitz games have been played.

Actually, it would make more sense to play Blitz or Armageddon play-offs over networked PCs.

The advantages is that no matter how fast the players move, they wouldn't be able knock over pieces. Plus, the Clock is "punched" automatically, at the moment when the chess piece is dropped by the mouse. Then, there wouldn't be situations where there are silly repetitive moves, due merely to the proximity of the piece to the Chess Clock. Finally, the Interface could be set to NOT allow "pre-moving"; something that could be enforced because the players are using a digital platform. This would prevent Zatonskih's (unintentional?) breach of chess etiquette, which a normal Armageddon scenario practically invites.

I think that the point that has been proved is that, unintentional or not, this was not just a breech of chess etiquette, it is a serious injustice.
Anna's premoves saved her precious time on her clock.
This time amounted to more than that which she won by.
She therefore would have flagged BEFORE Irina, had she followed the rules of the game.
And it would be Irina who would be getting the congratulations as the legitimate women's champion.
But she didn't follow the rules; she saved time on her clock (unintentionally or not) by moving on Irina's time; and she was declared the winner when Irina's time ran out.
The TD said nothing. Maybe he didn't realize what had happened. But now it is there for all the chess world to see.
This is more than the question of, did Gary's fingers leave the knight for afew milliseconds. This concerns a national title, and it seems to me that there is evidence that Irina was robbed of a justly earned victory.

I don't think post-mortems of blitz games are that useful. Both players were moving quickly and were under enormous pressure, given the stakes. No one protested anything during the game.

I agree with the previous posters who suggest that blitz armageddon games are not a good way to decide a national championship. However, there is perhaps one silver lining to this particular blitz play-off, which is that Krush and Zatonskih played fighting chess throughout the tournament and kept fighting to the bitter end.

Rather than criticize them for a moment of disappointment or their conduct under extreme pressure, maybe we could be grateful for their fighting spirit. And for the fact that for the first time in U.S. history, we have two women playing chess at or very near the GM level.

I'm with Doug on using computers for such ocasions, it seems a very good idea.

For those here using words like robbery and cheating, I have one question: Have you ever played blitz?

just wondering...

Danica Patrick seems to be allowed to get mad sometimes.

(Yahoo, May 25, 2008)

"Kanaan was seething, but his display of anger was nothing compared to Patrick’s after she was run into by Ryan Briscoe while trying to leave pit lane late in the race.

A furious Patrick then got out of her car and walked purposefully toward Briscoe’s pit for what was shaping up as a confrontation with his crew. She removed her gloves and seemed ready to rumble before track security personnel directed her back to her own pit area.

“I was ready to take it all off, my helmet and everything—because it’s hard to talk through the helmet,” Patrick said. “It’s probably a better idea that I didn’t make it all the way down there anyway because, well, as you guys know, I’m a little emotional.”

Patrick said she was waiting for Briscoe to come talk to her about the incident. After watching a replay, Briscoe seemed convinced that Patrick had plenty of room to move over and didn’t seem willing to offer an apology."

And Quely, some of us have played blitz but we save the tricks and cheating for fun with friends, not for formal tournaments.

My point is that in a time scramble, there is not a single normal person out there who thinks: "Oh I better watch that I do not touch somenting before my opponent has pressed his clock".

Get real, you are under five different types of pressure, your competitive instincts are kicking and everything is happening at lightning speed.

Of course blitz to decide championships is a farce, but it is unfair to blame the players caught in the heat of the moment.

FIDE Blitz rules incorporate FIDE Rapidplay rules. FIDE Rapidplay rules require a claim to be made by the player before any rules about the movement of pieces are enforced.

No claim was made. That's the end of that.

I admire Irina Krush's acheivements and admit that she--and any player in the championships--could kick my ass blindflded while giving pawn and move odds.

That being said, in any real sport, a player throwing a piece of eqipment full force into a spectator warrants a suspension.

Every time.

No matter how mad you are.

No matter how mad you have a right to be.

No matter how sorry you are afterwards.

No matter if you didn't mean it.

Period.

Full stop.

Brennan,

It is beyond silly to compare a rook flying at knee height after being swept off a chess board by the back of a hand, to 'throwing a piece of equipment full force'.

What? A hockey stick? A javelin? A helmet? A discus?

"What? A hockey stick? A javelin? A helmet? A discus?"

In the case of chess, a king.

"Short, of course, went from there all the way to get wiped out by Kasparov after helping split the chess world."

Kasparov should be absolved of all blame because the split was Short's idea. (As a five-year-old I often used this argument so it would be hypocritical of me to reject it now.)

Sweeping a chess piece off the board.

With your hand.

Is EXACTLY the same.

As throwing it full force at a spectator.

Period.

Full Stop.

"That being said, in any real sport, a player throwing a piece of eqipment full force into a spectator warrants a suspension."

Yes, the USCF ought to slap Krush with a one week suspension from participating in any officially sponsored USCF events. Satisfied?

Sheesh, one would think that she was pulling another Ronnie Artest, or something...

"Of course blitz to decide championships is a farce, but it is unfair to blame the players caught in the heat of the moment."

The Armageddon structure itself is the major contributing factor that leads to such an unsatisfying conclusion. Under any normal circumstances, the players would probably have agreed to a draw in that situation. That option was foreclosed--at least for Krush. So the competition devolves, from something resembling Chess, to a game of "Clock Slap".

They played a series of Tie-break games, and the tie was not broken. At that point, wouldn't it make sense to revert to a mathematical tie-break system, which after all is based on the performance of the players during the main event itself? Even flipping a coin would be preferable to the randomness of the result of the "Clock slap" competition that ensued.

It is true that had Krush kept a cool head, that she would have simply restarted her opponent's clock, or else stopped the clocks to make a claim. However, in the heat of the competition, with a few seconds left, it is hard to expect a player to readjust their focus from the movement of pieces on the board.

I see no reason why the "time bid" process can't work, even if both sides are to be accorded a couple of seconds of time delay per move.

There is a difference between being on the margin of moving the piece as the opponent presses the clock to being on the margin of moving the piece as your opponent is moving theirs. I think that one can easily aim for the former and get nowhere near the latter- so there is no argument to do with the heat of the battle- simply don't have your hand hovering ready to move at the same time should give enough time for the opponent to press the clock. (this is actually against the rules in itself strictly speaking- obstructing the board etc.)

Delay is a good solution too, also simply enforce rules of not intentionally moving almost the same time as the opponent- if your hand rushes to the board after the opponent let go of their piece the delay would probably be enough for them to push the clock before you touch your piece.

I think I speak for many of us when I say that, long ago, at an early age, I descended deep into the pit of chess geekdom, from which there is no escape.

Still, it surprises even a hardcore chessnerd like me how much enjoyment there is to be derived from videos of big-name players playing. Krush's postgame comportment aside (I think it was perfectly understandable and not terribly outrageous), the video of her game with Zatonskih is fun to watch. As is even a slow game between, say, Topalov and Ivanchuk. It's neat to see these people think.

The sad thing about the Krush-Zatonskih game is that it seems to have been played in a crummy little hotel conference room with only a handful of tired spectators attending. I dunno, just seems like there should be more fanfare--maybe a stage at least--for a game deciding a US Championship.

Previously I had seen another video of the Krush-Zatonskih game, shot from a different angle, in which all you see is Krush storming off after the game.

But I just watched the other video, in which you clearly see Krush smack the white king clear across the room.

Wow. Talk about chess ninjas: she used her secret martial arts skills to turn an ordinary chess piece into a potentially lethal projectile.

Still, I admire her competitive spirit.

"Sweeping a chess piece off the board.
With your hand.
Is EXACTLY the same.
As throwing it full force at a spectator.
Period.
Full Stop."

Quite so. In fact, this explains the current trend in major league baseball of pitchers sweeping the ball from the palm of the left hand.

I'm certain 110 mph pitches are not long coming...

Krush should marry Korchnoi-- they'd get along great, save the fact Korchnoi isn't a hermaphrodite. What a sore loser.

The only sense in which Irina and Korchnoi are comparable is the way the chess community reacts to their displays of temper.
Korchnoi gets a cute nickname, "Victor the Terrible," while Irina gets pillaried by insecure nerds who have a problem with a woman showing some passion.
And that's about as far as it goes.
Irina is a model of ethical conduct and sportsmanship. No one plays her with the fear that, if they defeat her, she will berate them and tell them they know nothing about chess or the like.
Yet this is the usual experience of players who sit down to play Korchnoi.
To the holier-than-thou patzers who excoriate her for her frustrated swipe of her king, one must ask: what would you do if you have just been cheated out of a win? And not only in a relatively meaningless weekend Swiss, but for a national title for which you have been working long hours and putting in untold amounts of time and energy?
Anna seems to have managed to make THREE moves with one second left on her clock. Show me how this is possible; and we are back in the twilight zone of The Magic Bullet, the Grassy Knoll, and The Lone Gunman Theory. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
Unless, of course, you are moving your pieces when your clock isn't running.

I agree that Zatonskih must have been moving her pieces on Krush's clock, probably while Krush's hand was moving from the piece to the clock. But, to quote Dick Cheney, "So?" As a threshold point, IF this was against the rules, then in any case Krush did not make a claim, so it's a dead issue, just as it would be if the tape showed that Zatonskih had left her king in check or moved her bishop from a light square to a dark square. Also, the FACT that Krush did not make a claim suggests to me that this was not really the obvious case of "cheating" that you think it was.

Because we are curious people, we might also ask, "Was this against the rules at the time?" In fact, we might want to focus the question more closely: "Was this (a) NOT against the rules at the time? (b) a violation of the rules, but one which Zatonskih might have believed was legal, or might have committed inadvertently? (c) a willful and deliberate violation of the rules?" I think that only (c) counts as "cheating" in the way the term has been used here.

Now, it's interesting to me that so far as I have noticed, nobody who is an experienced TD at blitz events has written either here or on the USCF forums to say, "Yes, as a TD I can tell you that this is against USCF (or FIDE) rules and I have penalized such behavior in tournaments I have directed, when the opponent made a claim." I don't claim to have read every post. Maybe someone said this and I missed it.

But anyway, there is apparently an argument about whether USCF or FIDE rules would apply to the matter, because the tournament was FIDE-rated. This MAY be a case in which the rules are in conflict. And I have seen knowledgeable people on both sides argue vociferously that "of course USCF rules apply" and "of course FIDE rules apply." Now, according to Gijssen, an experienced arbiter, FIDE rules do NOT prohibit moving on your opponent's clock after your opponent's move is determined, as long as the opponent is allowed to press the clock. Well, if there was ENOUGH ambiguity about whether FIDE or USCF rules applied (I don't see it actually spelled out anywhere in the pre-tournament publicity?) that reasonable people can argue about it or now, then I think Zatonskih HAS to be given the benefit of the doubt and should not be called a "cheater". She may have thought that "pre-moving" was legal under USCF rules. (By the way, in skittles clock blitz games, nobody has ever told me "You have to wait until I hit my clock before you touch your piece.") She may have thought that FIDE rules applied on this point, in which case pre-moving was legal at least according to Gijssen.

Semifinally, if one sees that your opponent has two seconds left on his/her clock and is aimlessly premoving his/her rook, it seems to me that the thing to do is to put his/her king in check with anything that is at hand. This will either force him/her to think about his/her move and lose the game, or induce him/her to make an illegal move. Parenthetically, Braunlich is mistaken when he writes that because of the draw odds Black could move aimlessly while White had to try to win on the board. When you and your opponent are both below 10 seconds in sudden death, you are no longer trying to win on the board, you are trying to avoid any mate that your opponent may have, make legal moves, cause your opponent to take time, and flag your opponent. This is bullet chess, not real chess. It looks like Zatonskih adjusted to this faster/better than Krush did.

Finally, looking ahead, the obvious REAL point to all this is that no matter WHAT one thinks of rapid playoffs and/or Armageddon games, we can AT LEAST all agree that a sudden-death no-delay blitz Armageddon game is a silly way to decide a title. The wise Bill Smythe pithily writes on the USCF forum that a 2-sec delay clock would have avoided all this hassle, and he's right.

So...I can't find whether USCF or FIDE rules applied. The below recap is based on USCF rules, for those interested in the technicalities of who can move and when.

(USCF 6) covers "the move." White moves, then players alternate. A player is "on move" when the oppononent's move is _completed._

(USCF 9) explains a Determined Move (hand released the piece, pieces rests on a legal square) and a Completed Move (player presses the clock). The USCF supplement on Blitz Chess reiterates this standard.

(USCF 10B) states that Touch Move applies to the player "on move." Therefore touching pieces on the opponent's time could be considered "annoying behavior."

(USCF 20G) forbids annoying behavior, and empowers the TD to impose penalties upon receiving complaints.

The end result...making your move before your opponent completes his/her move is illegal, and could fall into the annoying behavior category subject to penalties. If this annoys you, then you can stop the clock and register a complaint with the TD.

This behavior is commonplace in blitz games -- I w